edible. This much of the art was public, which set aside the attempted service by [166] property and open to general publication upon nonresident defendants and dismissed the bill upon consideration of the The product of this process was allegations of such bill, which, upon apknown and open to public use. To sup- plication of general principles, were held ply such products as the patentee has not to show that plaintiff had any such described in the broad claims in suit lien upon or interest in the assets within may have been new and useful, but the district sought to be reached as audoes not, in our opinion, arise to thorized him to invoke the procedure outthe dignity of invention, and is an lined in the Judicial Code, § 57, is not advance step which would occur to one skilled in the art when investigating and considering the subject. It follows that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the bill on the ground that claims 1 and 2 are void for the reasons stated in this opinion. Reversed.

[blocks in formation]

1. A judgment of a Federal district court can be reviewed by direct appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in a case in which there is a contention that no valid service of process has been made upon the defendant, and that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction over the person.

[For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 895-
914, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Appeal from district court-jurisdic-

tion below.

reviewable in the Federal Supreme Court
as presenting a question of the jurisdiction

of the district court as a Federal court.
[For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 895-
914, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 341.]

Submitted October 11, 1920. Decided December 6, 1920.


PPEAL from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York to review a decree which set aside service by publication upon nonresident defendants, and dismissed the bill, in a suit to enforce an alleged lien upon property within the district. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. Marion Erwin and Frederick M. Czaki submitted the cause for appellant.

Mr. Walter H. Merritt submitted the cause for appellees. Mr. A. Delafield Smith was on the brief.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant, plaintiff below, a resident and citizen of the state of New Jersey, filed a bill of complaint against David Costaguta, Marcos A. Algiers, Alejandro Sassoli, Eugenio Ottolenghi, individually and as copartners composing the firm of David Costaguta & Company, asserting that they, and each of them, were aliens, and residents of the Republic of Argentine, South America. The bill joined as defendants Renado Taffell, a British subject, resident of New York and the southern district thereof, and the American-European Trading Corporation, or[For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 895-ganized under the laws of New York. 914, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Appeal from district court diction below.

2. The jurisdiction of a Federal district court as a Federal court is not presented in such a way as to authorize an appeal directly to the Federal Supreme Court, where the question of jurisdiction presented and decided turns upon questions of general law applicable to actions brought in other jurisdictions.


3. A decree of a Federal district court

Note. On direct review in Federal Supreme Court of judgments of district or circuit courts-see notes to Gwin v. United States, 46 L. ed. U. S. 741; B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 56 L. ed. U. S. 894; and Berkman v. United States, 63 L. ed. U. S. 877.

The bill sets forth at length a contract whereby it is alleged that a copartnership was formed between the plaintiff and David Costaguta & Company for the buying and selling of hosiery. The bill alleges that to carry the contract into effect a place of business was established in New York city; that disagreements arose between the parties; that plaintiff elected to terminate the contract and demanded a liquidation of the merchandise and an ac

The district judge, after entering the decrees of dismissal, made a certificate as follows:

"I hereby certify that said decrees were entered solely because the case as made by the bill did not set forth a legal or equitable claim to or lien on the property in the district, of which this court would have jurisdiction within the meaning of § 57 of the Judicial Code, or in which this court could render a judgment otherwise than a judgment in personam, against the nonresident aliens who appeared specially and objected to the jurisdiction of the court."

counting; that the firm of David Costa- This resulted in the dismissal of the guta & Company caused the American- plaintiff's bill by final decree, and the European Corporation to be organized case was brought here by the plaintiff under the laws of New York, and that under § 238 of the Judicial Code, upon said firm caused certain assets of the co- the question of jurisdiction of the partnership to be transferred to the cor- court. poration in fraud of the plaintiff, and which assets, it was alleged, were within the territorial jurisdiction of [170] the southern district of New York. Plaintiff prayed a dissolution of the alleged copartnership; the liquidation of the property thereof; that the nonresident defendants account for their acts and transactions, and that it be established what sum, if any, remained due to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff be decreed to have a lien upon all of the property of the defendants and on the property and assets of the AmericanEuropean Trading Corporation; that a receiver pendente lite be named. An order was prayed for the delivery of the property to the receiver, and an injunction to restrain its transfer or disposition. A temporary restraining order was asked, pending the hearing and the return of the rule nisi, prohibiting in any manner or form interference with the property, or removing the same from the jurisdiction of the court. An order was issued requiring the defendants to show cause why such receiver pendente lite should not be appointed, and the defendants required to transfer the property to such receiver, and enjoining them from otherwise transferring the same. The subpoena and order for the rule were served on the resident defendants American-European Trading Corporation and Taffell. Plaintiff then procured an order for service upon the nonresident defendants by publication under § 57 of the Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1102, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. § 1039, 5 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 525]. The nonresident defendants filed a special appearance for the purpose of asking the court to quash and set aside the order for service by publication, and for an order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why an order should not be made, vacating and setting aside the service by publication, and also to vacate, quash, and set aside certain alleged service on an agent of the firm in the southern district of New York. A motion was also made by the American-European Trading Corporation and Taffell by special appearance, for the purpose of opposing the jurisdiction. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for an injunction and receiver, and granted the nonresident [171] defendants' motion to vacate the order for service by publication.

The judge also delivered an opinion, which is in the record, holding that, under the terms of the contract, the plaintiff had no right in the assets as such, and no partner's lien upon the property, but was confined to his rights in personam against the firm, and that, therefore, there could be no service by publication under § 57 of the Judicial Code. That section is a re-enactment of § 8 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. at L. 472, chap. 137). It provides for service by publication when, in any suit commenced in any district court of the United States to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon, or claim to, or to remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal suit is brought, one or more of the deproperty within the district where such fendants therein shall not be an inhabitant of or found within the said district, or shall not voluntarily appear thereto.1

1 Section 57. "When in any suit commenced in any district court of the United States to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon or claim to, or to remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district where such suit is brought, one or more of the defendants therein shall not be

an inhabitant of or found within the said

district, or shall not voluntarily appear thereto, it shall be lawful for the court to make an order directing such absent defendant or defendants, to appear, plead, answer, or demur by a day certain to be designated, which order shall be served on

such absent defendant or defendants, if

practicable, wherever found, and also upon the person or persons in possession or charge of said property, if any there be; or where such personal service upon such absent defendant or defendants is not practicable, such order shall be published in

Section 238 of the Judicial Code pro- | 228 U. S. 137, 57 L. ed. 768, 33 Sup. vides that, the case [172] being one Ct. Rep. 197. in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue, that question shall be certified to this court.

The appellees challenge the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this appeal on the ground that the case does not present a jurisdictional issue properly reviewable by this court.

That the question of the adequacy of the allegations of the bill to justify the relief sought does not present a jurisdictional question was held in Smith v. MeKay, 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 45 L. ed. 410, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 234 U. S. 369, 372, 58 L. ed. 1356, 1358, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 810; R. J. Darnell v. Illinois C. R. Co. 225 U. S. 243, 56 L. ed. 1072, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 760; Public Service Co. v. Corboy, 250 U. S. 153, 162, 63 L. ed. 905, 909, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440.

[173] Since the decision of Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214, it has been the accepted doctrine that where there is a contention that no valid service of process has been made upon the defendant, and the judgment is rendered without jurisdiction over the The opinion of the court below, read in person, such judgment can be reviewed connection with the certificate, shows that by direct appeal to this court. This it was held that the contract set up in the principle was restated and previous cases cited as late as G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Saalfield, 241 U. S. 22, 26, 60 L. ed. 868, 871, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 477.

bill gave no lien upon or right in rem in the assets sought to be reached within the district. The question was presented, the court, in the exercise of jurisdiction, after an examination of the contract set forth in the bill, and a consideration of its terms, determined it [174] upon prin. ciples which would have been equally applicable had the question been presented in other jurisdictions. Its decision, therefore, did not involve the jurisdiction of the Federal court as such, which, it is settled, is required in order to justify a direct appeal to this court.

It is equally well settled that where the question of jurisdiction presented and decided turns upon questions of general law, determinable upon principles alike applicable to actions brought in other jurisdictions, the jurisdiction of the court as a Federal court is not presented in such wise as to authorize the jurisdictional appeal directly to this court; and the question must be decided as other questions are, by the usual course of appellate procedure, giving review in the circuit In Chase v. Wetzlar, 225 U. S. 79, 56 court of appeals. Louisville Trust Co. v. L. ed. 990, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 659, the Act Knott, 191 U. S. 225, 48 L. ed. 159, 24 of March 3, 1875, now § 57 of the Judicial Sup. Ct. Rep. 119; Bache v. Hunt, 193 Code, was involved, and there was an atU. S. 523, 48 L. ed. 774, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. tempt to have service on alien defend547; Fore River Shipbuilding Co. v. ants by publication under the provisions Hagg, 219 U. S. 175, 55 L. ed. 163, 31 of the statute. The issue made was as to Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; Scully v. Bird, 209 whether there was property of the deU. S. 481, 485, 52 L. ed. 899, 901, 28 Sup fendants within the jurisdiction of the Ct. Rep. 597; Bogart v. Southern P. Co. court. That issue was held to present a such manner as the court may direct, not | trict; and when a part of the said real or less than once a week for six consecutive personal property against which such proweeks. In case such absent defendant shall ceedings shall be taken shall be within annot appear, plead, answer, or demur within other district, but within the same state, the time so limited, or within some further such suit may be brought in either district time, to be allowed by the court, in its dis in said state: Provided, however, That any cretion, and upon proof of the service or defendant or defendants not actually perpublication of said order and of the personally notified as above provided may, at same, it shall be lawful for the court to any time within one year after final judg entertain jurisdiction, and proceed to the ment in any suit mentioned in this section, hearing and adjudication of such suit in enter his appearance in said suit in said the same manner as if such absent defend-district court, and thereupon the said court ant had been served with process within the said district; but said adjudication shall, as regards said absent defendant or defendants without appearance, affect only the property which shall have been the subject of the suit and under the jurisdiction of the court therein, within such dis

formance of the directions contained in the

shall make an order setting aside the judg ment therein and permitting said defendant or defendants to plead therein on payment by him or them of such costs as the court shall deem just; and thereupon said suit shall be proceeded with to final judg ment according to law."

question of jurisdiction properly reviewable in this court under § 238. In the case now presented no question is made as to the presence of property in the district. The attempted service was set aside, and the bill dismissed, upon consideration of the allegations of the bill which, it was held, upon application of general principles, did not show that the plaintiff had any lien upon or interest in the property authorizing him to invoke the procedure outlined in § 57 of the Judicial Code.

As to the contention that the whole case is here upon a constitutional question because of the procedure in the court below, § 238 provides that when a case comes here upon a question of jurisdiction, that question alone shall be certified. Moreover, we find no merit in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights, so as to present questions arising under the Constitution.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


the enforcement of a judgment of a state
court, obtained under circumstances that
render such enforcement contrary to recog-
nized principles of equity and standards of
good conscience, is not forbidden by the
prohibition in the Judicial Code, § 265,
against enjoining proceedings in state courts
except in bankruptcy cases.

[For other cases, see Courts, VI. f, in Digest
Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Master and servant

[ocr errors]

when relation express messenger.

3. An express messenger in charge of express matter which a railway company was transporting for the express company in an express car furnished by the railway company under a contract which gave the express company the exclusive privilege of conducting an express business, the railway company to provide the motive power and the train operatives, was on the train as but of the express company, by which he an employee not of the railway company, was employed, directed, and paid, and at

whose will he was to continue in service or
be discharged.

[For other cases, see Master and Servant, I. a,
in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Master and servant

employers' liability express company not carrier by railroad limiting liability. 4. A common carrier by express which

[175] WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Pe- neither owns nor operates a railway, but


[blocks in formation]

1. A decision of a circuit court of appeals holding the bill insufficient, and for that reason alone reversing the decree below by which such bill was held good on demurrer, and remanding the cause, is not final, but leaves the district court free, in its discretion, to allow an amendment to the bill, curing the defect.

[For other cases, see Appeal and Error, IX. 1, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

Courts conflict of jurisdiction


ing proceedings in state courts.

which, under contract with a railway company, conducts an express business over such railway, the railway company furnishing the express car, the motive power, and the train operatives, and the express com. pany paying for this service, is not a "com. mon carrier by railroad" within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, and is, therefore, not affected by the provision of § 5 of that act, invalidating any contract whereby a carrier subject to that act exempts itself from any liability under it.

[For other cases, see Master and Servant, II. a. 2, a; II. a, 2, c, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1918 Supp.]

[blocks in formation]

5. An express messenger in charge of stay-express matter which a railway is transporting under a contract with the express

2. A suit in a Federal court to stay company may validly stipulate, as a conNote.-On appellate jurisdiction of sustaining a similar relation to the Federal Supreme Court over circuit company-see notes to Denver & R. G. courts of appeals-see notes to Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co. 53 L. ed. U. S. 605, and St. Anthony's Church v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 59 L. ed. U. S. 1119.

On constitutionality, application, and effect of Federal Employers' Liability Act-see notes to Lamphere v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 38, and Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, L.R.A.1915C, 47.

As to contract exempting railroad company from liability for negligent in jury to sleeping car employee, or others

R. Co. v. Whan, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 432; Coleman v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 432, and Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Kinney, L.R.A.1917D, 648.

On conclusiveness of prior decisions on subsequent appeals-see note to Hastings v. Foxworthy, 34 L.R.A. 321.

On right to amend pleadings after final decision on appeal-see note to Todd v. Bettingen, 18 L.R.A.(N.S.) 263.

On validity of agreement to restrict carrier's liability, generally-see notes to Missouri P. R. Co. v. Ivey, 1 L.R.A.

136 C. C. A. 402, 220 Fed. 796; on secSee same case below, on first appeal, ond appeal, 161 C. C. A. 161, 249 Fed. 109.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

dition of his employment by the express Northern District of Mississippi, encompany, that neither that company nor the joining the enforcement of a judgment. railway company shall, under any circum-Reversed. stances or in any case, be liable for any injury which he may receive while on the railway company's trains as such messenger, whether caused by the negligence of the rail way company or otherwise, and that he will❘ assume all and every risk incident to such | employment, from whatever cause arising, thereby assenting to the contractual arrangement between the two companies exempting the railway company from liability for such injuries, and obligating himself to the express company to refrain from asserting any liability against it or the railway company on account of any such injuries.

[For other cases, see Carriers, II. a, 8, in
Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[ocr errors]

against enforcement of unconscionable judgment.

6. An express company with which an employee in charge of express matter transported by railway stipulated, as a condition of employment, to assume all risk of injuries incident to his employment, from whatever cause arising, is entitled to have such employee restrained from enforcing a judgment which, in violation of his agreement, he wrongfully sought and obtained against the railway company, which judgment, as between the two companies, the express company is bound to pay, and which was rendered in an action to which the express company was not a party, and wherein it could not be heard, the employee being financially irresponsible, so that if the judgment is collected, the express company, which has not been in any wise negli

gent or at fault, will be remediless.
[For other cases, see Injunction, I. i, 2, in
Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 41.]

Argued December 19, 1919.


cember 6, 1920.

Mr. Charles W. Stockton argued the cause, and, with Messrs. K. E. Stockton and Edward R. Whittingham, filed a brief for petitioner:

The Federal Employers' Liability Act does not apply to express companies.


Second Employers' Liability Cases (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.) 223 U. S. 1, 56 L. ed. 327, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169, 1 N. C. C. A. 875; United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143, 51 L. ed. 411, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 191; United States Cerecedo Hermanos y Compañia, 209 U. S. 337, 52 L. ed. 821, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 532; Latimer v. United States, 223 U. S. 501, 56 L. ed. 526, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242; Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 62 L. ed. 123, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7; United States v. Morseman, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 112, 42 Fed. 448; Southern Indiana Exp. Co. v. United States Exp. Co. 88 Fed. 659, s. c. 35 C. C. A. 172, 92 Fed. 1022.

The Employers' Liability Act, even if applicable to express companies, would not affect the contract in question.

Robinson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 237 U. S. 84, 59 L. ed. 849, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491, 8 N. C. C. A. 1.

The contract in question is not Decided De- against public policy.

Santa Fe, P. & P. R. Co. v. Grant Bros. Constr. Co. 228 U. S. 177, 57 L. ed. 787, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 474; Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498, 44 L. ed. 560, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385; McKay v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 133 Tenn. 590, 182 S. W. 874; Perry v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. 1

N WRIT of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review a decree which, on a second appeal, reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill, a decree of the District Court for the 500; Hartwell v. Northern P. Exp. Co. L. ed. U. S. 465, and Chicago, M. & St. 3 L.R.A. 342; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 42 L. ed. U. S. 688. Payne, 6 L.R.A. 849; Adams Exp. Co. As to express messengers as passenv. Harris, 7 L.R.A. 214; Duntley v. Bos-gers-see note to Baltimore & O. S. W. ton & M. R. Co. 9 L.R.A. 452; Gulf, C. R. Co. v. Voigt, 44 L. ed. U. S. 560. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gatewood, 10 L.R.A. On injunction against judgment for 419; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Foley, 12 matter arising subsequent to its rendiL.R.A. 799; Deming v. Merchants' Cot-tion-see note to Little Rock & Ft. S. ton-Press & Storage Co. 13 L.R.A. 518; R. Co. v. Wells, 30 L.R.A. 560. Ballou v. Earle, 14 L.R.A. 433; Little On general equitable jurisdiction in Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Cravens, 18 regard to injunctions against judgments L.R.A. 527; Everett v. Norfolk & S. R.-see notes to Jarrett v. Goodnow, 32 Co. 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 985; New Jersey L.R.A. 321, and Davis v. Tileston, 12 Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 12 L. ed. U. S. 366.

« ForrigeFortsett »